NEW SHARROCK MILLS versus MAHESHBHAI T. RAO.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 25-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NEW SHARROCK MILLS 
v. 
MAHESHBHAI T. RAO. 
OCTOBER 25, 1996 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.) 
Labour Law : 
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946-Section 78-Jwisdictio11 
C 1111der-Labour 'Court inspite of co11cludi11g that the discipli11ary i11qui1y 
against the workman was legal & proper, set-aside the punishment awarded 
by the ma11agement-Held, in view of its conclusion, the Labour Court ought 
not have inteif ered with the punishment, since it has jurisdiction, 011ly to 
decide legality and propriety of the order of employer under the standing 
orders. 
D 
E 
F 
Charge of misconduct agai11st workman-Punishment of discharge in-
stead of dismissal, after disciplinary i11quiry-I11teif ere11ce by Labour Court by 
ordering rei11statement of w01'kman with 40% back wages-Held, pu11ishment 
not dispropo1tio11ate, hence does not waJTant inteif erence of Labour Cowt. 
Respondent, a Badli Workman, was held guilty of misbehaviour with 
superior officials, in disciplinary inquiry, under the standing orders and 
was discharged from service with payment of 30 days salary in lieu of 
notice. Prior to this incident, the respondent had misbehaved on several 
occasions and had failed to improve despite his assurances. 
Respondent moved labour court under Section 78 of Bombay In-
dustrial Relations Act, 1946. Labour Court came to the conclusion that 
finding of the departmental enquiry was legal & proper and that the 
respondent was guilty of the misconduct. Notwithstanding the conclusion, 
G the Labour Court set aside the order of discharge and ordered reinstate-
ment of the respondent with 40% back wages. 
Writ Petition by the appellant Mills before the High Court was 
dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
762 
NEWSHARROCKMILLSv. M.T.RAO[KIRPAL,J.] 
763 
HELD : 1.1. The direction of the Labour Court ordering reinstate· A 
ment of the respondent with forty percent back wages was clearly unwar-
,._,..,. 
ranted. The Labour Court was exercising jurisdiction under Section 78 of 
the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It had the jurisdiction interalia 
to decide the disputes regarding propriety and legality of an order passed 
by an employer acting or purporting to act under the standing orders. The B 
Labour Court, in the present case, having come to the conclusion against 
the respondent, ought not to have interfered with the punishment which was 
awarded, in the manner it did. This is not a case where the court could come 
to the conclusion that the punishment which was awarded was shockingly 
disproportionate to the employee's conduct and his past record. [766-B-C] 
c 
1.2. The punishment imposed by the management was in no way 
disproportionate to warrant interference by the Labour Court. It was over· 
looked by the Labour Court that on the finding of the Inquiry Officer that 
the respondent had misbehaved with his superior officer and was guilty of 
misconduct, the appellant could have dismissed the respondent from ser· 
D 
vice. The appellant chose not to do so. Instead it passed an order of 
discharging the respondent from service. Lesser punishment having been 
given by the management itself, there was no justifiable reason for the 
Labour Court to have set aside the punishment so awarded. [766-D-F] 
r 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1959 of E 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.92 of the Gujarat High 
Court in S.A. No. 7423 of 1991. 
Dushyant Dave, Pratap Venogopal, (K.J. John) Adv. (NP) for the F 
Appellant. 
S.C. Patel for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KIRPAL, J. The only question which arises for consideration in this G 
~ 
appeal is whether the Labour Court, having found that the employee was 
guilty of miscondud in an inquiry held in accordance with law and in 
compliance with principles of natural justice, can set aside the order of his 
discharge and substitute the same with an order of reinstatement with forty 
per cent back wages. 
H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent was engaged as a Badli workman, by the appellant, 
some time in October, 1971. On 29th December, 1976 the respondent 
entered the office of the Deputy Manager and started abusing him and 
threatened that the mill officers will not be safe outside the mill and that 
he did not care if he had to go to jail for murder of four to five officers. 
B 
In view of the aforesaid abusive behaviour of the respondent a show
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.